The Motte and Bailey tactic used by CRT apologists is described by The Woke Temple on Twitter:
Also on Twitter, I spotted another description by Moe Lastman:
It’s a textbook motte-and-Bailey.No one is opposing “ideas”, they are opposing the pedagogy which is founded in CRT that teaches white children to be ashamed of the color of their skin and black children to feel like they are powerless victims.
Here is yet more evidence that the two political parties have two separate sycophant news teams. They cover the dysfunctional children of former President Trump and President Biden in starkly different ways.
Do you remember how the left-leaning news media hid the Hunter Biden laptop discovery? And then Twitter blocked the account of the New York Post as the election drew near? As Glenn Greenwald stated, the story was newsworthy for the corruption angle.
"Pretending that the Biden laptop story was about sex or drugs is utterly deceitful. A person's addiction struggles [and] consensual adult sex is not news. The story was (and is) about financial corruption. And there's *zero* doubt the docs were authentic," Greenwald wrote on Twitter.Hunter Biden has never denied that it was his laptop. In this CBS interview Hunter Biden stated that it could have been his laptop.
If this laptop and big paycheck (to a person lacking any credentials to merit that kind of pay) had been about any of Trump's degenerate children, the media would have been all over it. I thought about this disparity further while watching excerpts from Russell Brand's recent interview with Glenn Greenwald.
But now there is more about Hunter, yet you will not see any of this in the NYT/NPR/WaPo side of the media:
Really and truly, people are talking about paying Hunter Biden $500K for paintings that look like this. The NYT did comment on Biden's interest in painting, but never mentioned the big money it is anticipated he would be paid, allegedly, for his paintings.
Some people who have been in high places are noting the stench in the air:
President Barack Obama's ethics chief on Monday slammed Hunter Biden's 'shameful and grifty' sale of his art pieces for up to $500,000 to anonymous buyers as part of an upcoming exhibition that has already sparked bribery and potential money laundering fears.Walter Shaub, the former Office of Government Ethics director, also warned that it could be a way for 'influence seekers' or foreign governments to funnel money to the Biden family.
Shaub, who last week called out Biden administration officials for hiring a slew of family members to a variety of positions, has urged Hunter and his art dealer Georges Berges to reveal the identity of the buyers so the public can see if the buyers are trying to get access to the White House.
But there is yet more Hunter Biden news that the left-leaning legacy outlets has ignored. Only a few days after his father delivered a speech on the topic of racism at Tulsa, Hunter is hurling racial slurs in texts directed to his attorney, in the context of his attorney's $88K bill for work done regarding Hunter's joint venture with a large Chinese Oil Company. One can debate how newsworthy his foul language is, but if any of the Trump kids had written these texts, they would be all over the left-leaning media.
I don't claim to know anything substantive about these deals, including the $50K/month Hunter was being paid by Burisma. Greenwald commented on that back when the story broke in October 2020:
After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.
A few days ago, Hunter Biden is reported to have used additional slurs against Asians.
My concern is, once again, that we have two media teams. They only report "news" that fits their narrative. The left-leaning legacy news never hesitated to maul the philistine and despicable Trump children, but it is hands-off when it comes to Hunter Biden, even though big amounts of suspicious money are connected with his exploits. And even though his moral character with regard to race relations conflicts sharply with the stated positions of his father, Joe Biden. On the other hand, the right wing media, such as the Daily Wire, is happy to heavily criticize Hunter Biden.
I'm convinced that many people don't actually want to be well informed. They choose their news sources so that they hear only those sorts of stories that make them feel like the world is the way they want it to be. This is true on the political left and the political right, and it doesn't seem like anything is going to change anytime soon. That said, can we at least start referring to the news media in a different way? Can we start referring to the two news teams as "news filters"? What news filter do you use? "I use the FOX news filter" or "I use the NPR/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo news filter. Doing this would make me feel 1% less bad about this rampant partisanship.
People utter the phrase "free speech" all the time, but it is a rare bird who appreciates how rare and precious this idea is, historically speaking. Here's an excerpt from an article by Greg Lukianoff:
What do you call an idea that has a clear track record of promoting innovation, human flourishing, prosperity, and progress, but is nonetheless rejected by every generation?I would call that idea radical. And because it’s always so staunchly opposed, I would call that idea “eternally radical.”
So what is the Eternally Radical Idea? It is freedom of speech.
The unfettered right to state your opinion is extremely rare in human history. Your right to promote reform, contradict prevailing orthodoxies, or engage in artistic and personal expression is even rarer.
Indeed, human beings are natural born censors with a strong drive toward community conformity. Throughout the millennia, how have we typically handled dissenters? Often it’s ostracization or banishment. At other times, it’s arrest, torture, beheadings, burning at the stake, crucifixion, or drinking hemlock.
When I deny that the current versions of CRT are related to the Civil Rights Movement, I assert this because:
A) CRT and antiracism are obsessed with dividing people into "colors" and treating them differently on the basis of "color."
B) The Platform of CRT and antiracism have no meaningful mechanism for improving the lives of the poor minority populations they pretend to serve.
C) CRT and antiracism excel at denying data relating to their mission (including police statistics and economic facts, such as the fact that 60% of Americans who identify as "black" are middle class or above).
D) CRT and antiracism advocates do not extol the teachings of Martin Luther King. In fact, King's teachings are barely mentioned in training materials.
There are other difference too, but this is a sampling based upon some of the articles I've written recently.
Increasing numbers of people are starting to understand that CRT and "antiracism" have no meaning connection to do with the traditional Civil Rights Movement, but now they are increasingly denying that CRT and "antiracism" are being taught in schools. I see this as motivated reasoning based on the fact that most of these people (the ones I know) are only exposed to left-leaning legacy media. These people admit of only a few outliers and deny that CRT or antiracism is a significant problem in the U.S. I disagree, based on these resources:
The recent case of Dana stangel-Plowe, former teacher at a school in Englewood.
The recent case of Paul Rossi.
The observations of Andrew Gutmann, a former parent at Brearly School.
Christopher Rufo's reports based upon leaked training materials at numerous schools.
Chloe Valdary teaches a good-hearted program to diminish bigotry she compares to the CRT programs of which she is knowledgable.
Numerous reports by Parents Defending Education.
Numerous reports of attempted cancellation based on CRT here.
Reports at businesses by Counterweight.
Many more reports here, by Princetonians for Free Speech.
I have also been personally contacted by approximately a dozen people who work in academia who are afraid to speech honestly on issues because CRT permeates the campus
More reports here (Stanford) and here (Rutgers).
John McWhorter's receipt of numerous complaints (see the comments) here.
Another recent resource is Christopher Rufo's "Critical Race Theory Briefing Book."
There are numerous other reports, more of them surfacing every week. I will try to update this list periodically.
